Abstract class definitions may be parameterized by one or more type parameters within enclosing braces; in the example, the type parameter is 'T'. There is no implicit type relationship between different parametrizations of an abstract class. Parameter names are local to the abstract class definition and they shadow non-parameterized types with the same name. Parameter names must be all uppercase, and they may be used within the abstract type definition as type specifiers. Whenever a parameterized type is referred to, its parameters are specified by type specifiers. The abstract class definition behaves like a non-parameterized version whose body is a textual copy of the original definition in which each parameter occurrence is replaced by its specified type. Parameterization may be thought of as a structured macro facility

Sather abstract classes may be similarly parametrized by any number of type parameters. Each type parameter may have an optional type bound; this forces any actual parameter to be a subtype of the corresponding type bound. Given the following definitions,

we may then instantiate an abstract variable a:$A{BAR}. BAR instantiates the parameter T and hence must be under the type bound for T, namely$BAR. If a type-bound is not specified then a type bound of $OB is assumed.

How are different parametrizations related?

It is sometimes natural to want a $LIST{MY_FOO} < $LIST{$MY_FOO}. Sather, however, specifies no subtyping relationship between various parametrizations. Permitting such implicit subtyping relationships between different parametrizations of a class can lead to type safety violations.